William  Knox  on 

American  Taxation 

(1769) 


UNPTHSIT^  OF  CONNECTICUT  LIBRARY,   STORR? 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Boston  Library  Consortium  IVIember  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/williamknoxonameOOknox 


(©Iti  ^outl)  itcaflet^^ 


No.    2IO. 


William  Knox 

ON 

American 

Taxation 

1769 

Edited  by  S.  E.  Morison. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Americans  are  not  accustomed  to  pay  much  attention  to 
the  Enghsh  side  of  the  taxation  argument  that  preceded  the 
American  Revolution.  The  leaders  of  that  great  movement 
succeeded  in  convincing  a  fighting  minority  of  their  country- 
men, and  many  English  Whigs  as  well,  that  the  taxation 
measures  of  Grenville  and  Townshend  were  illegal  and  un- 
constitutional, making  resistance  a  duty  as  well  as  a  right. 
Yet  their  arguments  are  singularly  vulnerable.  Down  to  the 
eve  of  war,  the  colonial  leaders  acknowledged  the  jurisdiction 
of  Parliament.  They  could  hardly  have  done  otherwise, 
since  Parhament  had  frequently  legislated  for  the  Colonies  in 
the  past,  regulated  their  trade,  and  levied  customs  duties. 
But  if  Parliament  is  acknowledged  the  supreme  legislature  of 
the  British  Empire,  it  is  difficult  to  escape  the  logic  that  it  has 
the  power  to  tax  all  British  subjects.  It  would  be  as  illogical 
to  deny  the  power  of  Congress  to  levy  income  taxes  or  customs 
duties  in  Alaska  or  the  Philippines,  because  these  territories 
have  no  voting  representatives  at  Washington. 

This  pamphlet  of  William  Knox  has  been  selected  to  represent 
the  English  side  of  the  controversy,  because  it  is  calm  in  temper, 
accurate  in  facts,  and,  in  substantial  agreement  with  the 
fundamental  theories  of  the  Whigs.  It  owes  much  of  its  force 
to  its  recognition  of  the  Whig  principles  of  natural  rights  and 
the  social  compact,  as  expounded  by  John  Locke.     It  appeared 


Q^n  in  1769,  during  the  second  stage  of  the  taxation  controversy, 

^\rf)    after  Parhament  had  substituted  the  Townshend  duties  on 

^0 .  A  \  ^  tea,  paper,  etc.,  for  the  Stamp  Act.  John  Dickinson's  " Letters 
of  a  Farmer  in  Pennsylvania,"  the  most  influential  American 
pamphlet  of  this  period,  is  frequently  referred  to  by  Knox. 
We  have  no  means  of  knowing  how  much  influence  the  "  Con- 
troversy Reviewed"  exerted  in  America;  but  it  is  significant 
that  not  long  after  its  appearance  the  more  advanced  colonial 
writers  ceased  to  split  hairs  on  the  taxation  question,  and 
adopted  the  logical,  though  historically  incorrect,  ground 
that  neither  King  nor  Parhament  ever  had  had  any  right  to 
legislate  for  the  Colonies. 

After  the  fashion  of  the  time,  Knox's  ''Controversy  Re- 
viewed" appeared  anonymously,  and  was  extremely  volumi- 
nous, covering  207  octavo  pages.  The  present  Leaflet  is  a 
selection  of  the  more  forceful  and  striking  passages.  The 
numerals  in  brackets  are  the  original  page  numbers. 


THE 

CONTROVERSY 

BETWEEN 

Great  Britain  and  her  Colonies 
REVIEWED; 

THE  SEVERAL  PLEAS  OF  THE  COLONIES, 

In  Support  of  their  Right  to  all  the  Liberties  and  Privileges 
of  British  Subjects,  and  to  Exemption  from  the  Legislative 
Authority  of  Parliament, 

STATED  AND   CONSIDERED: 


The  Nature  of  their  Connection  with,  and 
Dependence  on,  Great  Britain, 


UPON  THE  EVIDENCE  OF 

HISTORICAL    FACTS 

AND 

AUTHENTIC    RECORDS 

LONDON: 

Printed  for  J.  ALNON,  oppofite  Burlington-PIovfe  in 
Piccadilly.     MDCCLXIX. 


[i]  He  that  goeth  about  to  persuade  a  multitude,  that  they 
are  not  so  well  governed  as  they  ought  to  be  (says  the  learned 
and  judicious  Hooker)  shall  never  want  attentive  and  favorable 
hearers ;  because  such  as  openly  reprove  supposed  disorders  of 
state,  are  taken  for  principal  friends  to  the  common  benefit 
of  all  and  for  men  that  carry  singular  freedom  of  mind.  Under 
this  fair  and  plausible  colour,  whatsoever  they  utter  passeth 
for  good  and  current. 


[5]  Far  be  it  from  me  to  wish  to  be  thought  insensible  to 
the  good  or  ill  opinion  of  my  countrymen;  but  as  I  consider 
it  to  be  my  duty  to  promote  their  welfare  to  the  utmost  of 
my  poor  ability,  I  will  shew  them  my  opinion,  whether  they 
may  reward  or  censure  me  for  my  endeavours.  On  this  principle, 
and  actuated  by  these  motives,  it  is,  that,  unawed  by  the  terrors 
which  rise  before  me,  I  adventure  upon  my  present  under- 
taking; and  I  set  down  to  review  the  American  controversy, 
with  the  single,  and  I  hope  honest,  purpose  of  bringing  back 
my  fellow  subjects  in  the  Colonies  to  a  just  sense  of  their 
duty  to  the  supreme  legislative  power,  by  exposing  to  them 
the  fallacies  by  which  they  have  been  deluded,  and  exploring 
the  dangers  which  the  paths  wherein  they  are  now  bewildered 
must  unavoidably  lead  them  into. 

The  several  pleas  which  have  been  urged  by  those  who 
have  distinguished  themselves  in  this  controversy,  on  behalf 
of  the  Colonies,  may  be  comprehended  under  these  two  general 
heads: 

[6]  The  title  of  the  inhabitants  in  the  Colonies  to  all  the 
rights,  liberties,  and  privileges  of  Englishmen;  and  their  claim 
to  exemption  from  the  jurisdiction  of  parliament. 

It  should  seem  to  be  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  Colonies, 
that  the  former  plea  was  established  before  they  adduced 
any  proofs  in  support  of  the  latter;  for,  should  they  fail  in 
the  one,  nothing  could  be  more  fatal  to  their  freedom,  and 
consequently  to  their  prosperity,  than  their  succeeding  in  the 
other. 

If  they  should  unhappily  be  able  to  demonstrate  that  the 
Colonies  are  no  part  of  the  British  state;  that  they  are  the 
king's  domain,  and  not  annexed  to  the  realm ;  that  the  inhabi- 
tants are  not  British  subjects,  nor  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
parhament;    they  can  have  no  title  to  such  privileges  and 


immunities  as  the  people  of  England  derive  under  acts  of  par- 
liament, nor  to  any  other  of  those  rights  which  are  pecuHar  to 
British  subjects  within  the  realm.  .  .  . 

[7]  Whatever  grievances  they  may  have  to  complain  of,  they 
must  seek  redress  from  the  grace  of  the  crown  alone;  for, 
should  they  petition  parliament  to  do  them  right,  they  them- 
selves have  authorized  the  crown  to  tell  parliament,  as  the 
secretary  of  state  to  James  the  First  did  the  house  of  commons, 
[8]  "America  is  not  annexed  to  the  realm,  nor  within  the  juris- 
diction of  parhament,  you  have  therefore  no  right  to  interfere." 

Such  being  the  case,  w^e  are  therefore  to  expect  to  find  the 
strongest  efforts  of  the  colony  advocates  directed  to  this  point. 
We  may  indeed  look  for  the  clearest  evidence,  the  most  con- 
vincing arguments,  and  even  demonstrative  proofs  of  their 
right  to  these  privileges,  independent  of  acts  of  parhament, 
since  we  see  them  so  eager  to  preclude  parliament  from  the 
power  of  conveying  to  them  any  privilege  whatever.  Let  us 
then  see  on  what  they  found  their  title. 

In  May  1765,  the  house  of  burgesses  in  Virginia  resolved, 
"That  the  first  adventurers  and  settlers  of  this  his  majesty's 
colony  and  dominion  of  Virginia,  [9]  brought  with  them  and 
transmitted  to  their  posterity,  and  all  other  his  majesty's  sub- 
jects since  inhabiting  in  this  his  majesty's  said  colony,  all  the 
liberties,  privileges,  franchises,  and  immunities,  that  have  at 
any  time  been  held  and  enjoyed,  and  possessed  by  the  people 
of  Great-Britain." 

This  resolution  is  adopted  by  the  assembly  of  Maryland,  and 
repeated  in  the  very  same  words:  and  as  the  assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia has  been  said  to  have  hung  out  the  standard  for  American 
liberty,  and  the  other  Colonies  have  little  more  merit  than  that 
of  following  their  leader,  I  must  confess  I  expected  to  have 
found  a  much  clearer  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  proposition  con- 
tained in  their  resolution  than  I  am  able  to  collect  from  the 
terms  in  which  it  is  expressed.  They  tell  us  indeed  ''That  the 
first  adventurers  in  the  reign  of  James  the  First,  brought  with 
them,  and  transmitted  to  their  posterity,  &c.  all  the  liberties, 
privileges,  franchises,  and  immunities,  that  the  people  of  Great- 
Britain  have  at  any  time  (since  as  well  as  before)  enjoyed  and 
possessed."  [lo]  But  in  what  sort  of  menstruum,  nucleous,  or 
embryo,  it  was  that  they  carried  with  them  to  Virginia,  in  the 
reign  of  James  the  First,  the  habeas  corpus  act,  which  the 
people  of  England  did  not  enjoy  or  possess  till  the  reign  of 


Charles  the  Second;  or  the  bill  of  rights  which  they  did  not 
enjoy  till  the  reign  of  William  and  Mary;  the  acts  for  altering 
the  succession  and  the  limitation  of  the  crown,  and  many  others 
passed  in  that  and  the  subsequent  reigns;  as  they  have  not 
condescended  to  inform  their  friends  in  England,  so  they  can 
only  expect  us  to  admire  their  profound  logical  skill,  and  must 
content  themselves  with  the  more  rational  applause  of  their 
countrymen,  who  they  may  have  more  fully  instructed. 

The  assembly  of  Pennsylvania,  by  their  resolutions  in  the 
same  year,  declare,  ''That  the  inhabitants  of  this  province  are 
intitled  to  all  the  liberties,  rights,  and  privileges  of  his  majesty's 
subjects  in  Great-Britain,  or  elsewhere;  and  that  the  consti- 
tution of  government  in  this  province  is  founded  on  the  natural 
rights  of  mankind,  and  the  noble  principles  of  English  liberty, 
and  therefore  is  or  ought  to  be  perfectly  free." 

[ii]  This  resolution  asserts  in  like  manner,  as  do  the  resolu- 
tions of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  that  the  people  of  that  colony 
are  intitled  to  all  the  rights  of  British  subjects;  but  it  does  not 
pretend  that  the  first  settlers  carried  them  there:  neither  does 
it  found  their  claim  to  them  upon  the  royal  charter  to  the  pro- 
prietor, or  upon  the  laws  of  Great  Britain,  but  upon  the  "nat- 
ural rights  of  mankind,  and  the  noble  principles  of  English 
liberty." 

That  the  natural  rights  of  mankind  should  give  any  people  a 
right  to  all  the  liberties  and  privileges  of  Englishmen,  is,  I 
believe,  a  doctrine  unknown  to  all  civiUans,  except  the  assem- 
bly of  Pennsylvania.  It  is  indeed  a  most  benevolent  doctrine; 
for  if  it  be  established,  it  will  render  the  blessings  which  British 
subjects  enjoy  under  their  excellent  constitution  universal  to 
all  people,  at  least  to  all  those  who  live  under  any  constitution 
of  government  which  is  founded  upon  the  natural  rights  of 
mankind,  [12]  in  whatever  part  of  the  world  they  may  inhabit, 
or  whoever  may  be  their  sovereign.  The  native  Indians  in 
North  America,  the  Hottentots  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
the  Tartars,  Arabs,  Cafres,  and  Groenlanders,  will  all  have  an 
equal  title  to  the  liberties  and  rights  of  Englishmen,  with  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania;  for  all  their  constitutions  of  govern- 
ment are  founded  on  the  natural  rights  of  mankind. 


[21]  —  But  it  seems  parhament  has  a  right  to  benefit  the 
colonies,  but  not  to  bind  them:   it  may  give  them  bounties,  but 


it  must  not  impose  burdens.  Its  power  over  the  colonies  is 
somewhat  Hke  that  allowed  by  the  deists  to  the  Almighty  over 
his  creatures,  he  may  reward  them  with  eternal  happiness  if 
he  pleases,  but  he  must  not  punish  them  on  any  account.  .  .  . 


[25]  I  come  now  to  what  Mr.  Dickenson  calls  the  American 
declaration  of  rights,  which  are  the  resolutions  of  the  commit- 
tees from  the  several  Colony  assemblies,  which  met  at  New 
York,  19  October,  1765.*  and  here  we  may  expect  to  find  the 
separate  and  irregular  claims  of  each  Colony  consolidated  and 
reduced  into  system  and  consistency.  Their  resolutions  are  as 
follow: 

[26]  "That  his  majesty's  subjects  in  these  Colonies  owe  the 
same  allegiance  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain  that  is  owing 
from  his  subjects  born  wdthin  the  realm,  and  all  due  subordina- 
tion to  that  august  body,  the  parliament  of  Great  Britain. 

''That  his  majesty's  liege  subjects  in  these  Colonies  are  in- 
titled  to  all  the  inherent  rights  and  liberties  of  his  natural- 
born  subjects  within  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain." 


[27]  What  Enghshman  could  desire  more  of  the  Colonies 
than  due  obedience  to  that  august  body,  the  parhament  of  Great 
Britain?  But  what  is  due  obedience  is  a  matter  in  which  they 
and  the  people  of  England  differ  exceedingly;  [28]  and  the  com- 
mittees chose  to  reserve  to  the  colonies  their  own  construction 
of  the  terms,  while  they  hoped  the  people  of  England  would 
be  led  to  believe  they  agreed  with  them  in  theirs. 

An  Englishman  conceives  due  obedience  to  parliament  to 
mean  lawful  obedience,  or  obedience  to  an  act  of  parhament. 
The  Colonies  conceive  the  parliament  to  have  no  right  to 
make  laws  for  them;  and  due  obedience  to  parliament  is  there- 
fore, in  their  apprehension,  no  obedience  at  all.  .  .  . 


[31]  Having  thus  seen  upon  what  sort  of  foundations  the 
different  colony  assemblies  build  their  several  titles  to  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  Englishmen,  and  that  each  super- 
structure, at  the  approach  of  reason,  vanishes  like — the  base- 

*  The  Stamp  Act  Congress. 


less  fabric  of  a  vision. — I  will  not  fatigue  the  reader  with  a 
discussion  of  the  arguments  introduced  by  the  colony  advo- 
cates in  support  of  the  assemblies  resolutions.  Whatever 
they  can  urge  in  behalf  of  the  Colonies  claim  to  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  Englishmen,  whilst  they  deny  that  they  are 
subjects  of  the  realm,  or  natural-born  British  subjects,  and  that 
the  Colonies  are  within  the  realm,  must  be  obnoxious  to  the 
same  charges  of  inconsistency  and  absurdity  to  which  the 
assemblies  resolutions  are  so  palpably  Hable;  and  the  simplest 
of  my  countrymen  can  easily  detect  the  most  artful  American 
sophister,  [32]  by  insisting  upon  his  answering  this  plain  ques- 
tion: Are  the  people  in  the  Colonies  British  subjects,  or  are 
they  aliens  or  foreigners? 


[33]  .  .  .  That  they  cannot  however  maintain  their  title  to 
those  rights  upon  any  other  ground,  than  that  of  their  being 
British  subjects,  born  and  inhabiting  within  the  realm,  is,  I 
think,  sufficiently  evident;  and  therefore,  that  they  may  fail  in 
proving  that  they  are  not  British  subjects,  and  that  the  Colonies 
lie  without  the  realm,  is  the  most  friendly  wish  I  can  give  them. 
How  far  they  have  succeeded  in  the  fatal  attempt,  must  be 
the  subject  of  our  next  enquiry. 


[34]  Wlien  the  repeal  of  the  stamp-act  was  their  object, 
a  distinction  was  set  up  between  internal  and  external  taxes; 
they  pretended  not  to  dispute  the  right  of  parliament  to  impose 
external  taxes,  or  port  duties,  upon  the  Colonies,  whatever 
were  the  purposes  of  parliament  in  laying  them  on,  or  however 
productive  of  revenue  they  might  be.  Nay,  Doctor  Frankhn 
tells  the  house  of  commons,  that  "they  have  a  natural  and 
equitable  right  to  some  toll  or  duty  upon  merchandizes  carried 
through  that  part  of  their  dominions,  viz,  the  American  seas, 
towards  defraying  the  expense  that  they  are  at  in  ships  to 
maintain  the  safety  of  that  carriage."  This,  however,  was 
only  the  language  for  1765  and  1766,  but  when  parliament 
seemed  to  adopt  the  distinction,  and  waiving  for  the  present 
the  exercise  of  its  right  to  impose  internal  taxes,  [35]  imposed 
certain  duties  on  merchandizes  imported  into  the  Colonies,* 
and   carried   through   those   seas  which   the  parliament   was 

*  The  Townshend  duties  of  1767,  on  tea,  paper,  etc. 


told  were  theirs:  the  distinction  between  internal  and  external 
taxes  is  rejected  by  the  colony  advocates,  and  a  new  one  de- 
vised between  taxes  for  the  regulatiojt  of  trade,  and  taxes  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue. 

This  new  distinction,  however,  between  taxes  for  the  regula- 
tion of  trade,  and  taxes  for  the  purpose  of  revenue,  as  far  as  it 
respects  the  right  of  parliament  to  impose  the  one,  but  not  the 
other,  is,  of  all  absurdities,  the  most  ridiculous  that  ever  was 
contended  for.  It  is  saying,  in  other  words,  that  parliament 
has  a  right  to  impose  a  heavy  tax,  but  not  a  small  one.  It 
may  lay  one  so  grievous,  that  no  body  can  afford  to  pay  it; 
but  it  has  no  authority  to  impose  one  which  may  be  easily 
borne:  nay,  in  the  instances  referred  to  by  Mr.  Dickenson  in 
his  Farmer's  Letters,  it  should  seem  to  mean  that  parliament 
has  no  right  to  reduce  a  tax  which  it  has  had  a  legal  right  to 
impose  in  a  manner  extremely  burdensome.  [36]  The  right  of 
Parliament  to  charge  foreign  molasses  with  a  duty  of  six- 
pence a  gallon  was  unquestionable;  but,  for  parliament  to 
reduce  the  six-pence  to  three-pence,  is  a  violent  usurpation  of 
unconstitutional  authority,  and  an  infringement  of  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  people  in  the  Colonies.  .  .  . 


[37]  It  is  the  purpose  of  parliament  in  laying  the  tax,  which, 
it  seems,  gives  it  the  right  of  laying  it.  Curious  reasoning  this! 
— Now,  should  it  happen,  that  parliament  was  at  any  time 
mistaken  in  its  purpose,  [38]  and  that  a  tax  which  it  imposed 
with  an  intention  that  no  body  should  pay  it,  that  is,  that  it 
should  operate  as  a  prohibition,  should  really  turn  out  to  be 
such  a  tax  as  the  commodity  on  which  it  was  charged  could 
bear,  and  the  people  in  the  Colonies  were  willing  to  purchase 
it  at  the  price  the  tax  had  raised  it  to,  what  should  we  do  then? 
If  the  tax  be  paid  it  then  becomes  a  revenue  tax,  and  no  longer 
a  prohibitory  one;  and  is  thenceforward  a  grievance,  and  an 
infringement  of  the  rights  of  the  colonies.  On  the  other  hand, 
suppose  parliament  should  be  mistaken  in  a  tax  it  laid  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue,  and  it  turned  out  a  prohibition,  would 
the  tax  then  become  a  constitutional  one? 


[41]  A  land-tax  is  a  judicious  regulation,   inasmuch  as  it 
excites  the  land  owner  to  cultivate  and  improve  his  lands; 


lO 

and  with  this  very  view,  taxes  are  laid  upon  unimproved  lands 
in  America,  by  the  colony  assemblies.  Thus  our  East-India 
duties  are  many  of  them  calculated  to  promote  our  own  manu- 
factures, as  well  as  to  raise  a  revenue.  Thus  the  duties  upon 
French  goods  Vv^ere  imposed  with  a  view  to  check  the  trade  of 
France,  [42]  to  encourage  our  own  manufactures,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  to  raise  a  fund  for  defraying  the  public  expences. 
So  likewise  are  a  multitude  of  our  taxes  upon  articles  of  luxury 
and  of  extravagance  in  our  home  consumption;  so  likewise  are 
the  taxes  upon  many  of  our  exports,  to  prevent  the  manufacture 
of  our  raw  materials  abroad,  and  to  encourage  it  at  home.  .  .  . 


[43]  This  boasted  distinction  between  taxes  for  the  regula- 
tion of  trade,  and  taxes  for  the  purpose  of  revenue,  we  therefore 
see  is  without  a  difference,  and  will  in  no  sort  serve  to  protect 
the  Colonies  from  parliamentary  internal  and  external  taxation, 
however  it  may  serve  for  a  pretence,  under  which  to  strip  par- 
liament of  all  jurisdiction  over  the  Colonies. 

[44]  I  have  indeed  thought  of  a  distinction  which  would 
suit  the  Colonies  purposes  much  better,  and  w^hich,  I  beheve, 
is  what  they  mean,  by  the  difference  between  taxes  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue,  and  taxes  as  regulations  of  trade,  if  they 
chose  to  speak  it  out,  which  is  that  between  the  imposing  taxes 
and  collecting  them.  They  would  acknowledge,  with  all  their 
hearts,  a  right  in  parliament  to  do  the  one,  provided  it  never 
attempted  to  do  the  other.  It  is  this  new  invention  of  collecting 
taxes  that  makes  them  burdensome  to  the  Colonies,  and  an 
infringement  of  their  rights  and  privileges; — and  herein  it  is 
that  Mr.  Grenville's  administration  has  proved  the  aera  of  the 
Colonies'  loss  of  liberty. 

The  duty  of  six  pence  a  gallon  upon  foreign  molasses,  which 
had  been  laid  thirty  years  before  Mr.  Grenville  was  first  com- 
missioner of  the  treasury,  was  no  grievance,  because  it  had 
never  been  collected;  but  when  that  gentleman  reduced  the  duty 
to  three  pence,  all  liberty  was  at  an  end — for  he  took  measures 
for  the  Colonies  to  pay  the  three  pence. 


[50]  For  if  the  authority  of  the  legislative  be  not  in  one 
instance  equally  supreme  over  the  Colonies  as  it  is  over  the 
people  of  England,  then  are  not  the  Colonies  of  the  same  com- 


II 

munity  with  the  people  of  England.  All  distinctions  destroy 
this  union;  and  if  it  can  be  shewn  in  any  particular  to  be  dis- 
solved, it  must  be  so  in  all  instances  whatever.  There  is  no 
alternative:  either  the  Colonies  are  a  part  of  the  community 
of  Great  Britain,  [51]  or  they  are  in  a  state  of  nature  with 
respect  to  her,  and  in  no  case  can  be  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  that  legislative  power  w-hich  represents  her  community, 
w^hich  is  the  British  parliament. 


[55]  It  would  be  endless  to  trace  this  doctrine  of  taxes  through 
all  its  consequences.  I  have  already  gone  far  enough  to  shew, 
that  upon  Mr.  Dickenson's  principles,  where  they  cannot  be 
imposed,  there  can  be  neither  restraints  upon  trade,  nor  exer- 
cise of  sovereign  authority;  [56]  and  that  if  Great  Britain 
does  not  possess  the  right  of  taxing  the  Colonies,  she  has  no 
right  to  exercise  any  jurisdiction  over  them;  but  that  the 
Colonies  are,  as  Mr.  Dickenson  says  they  are,  of  themselves, 
"a  distinct  community,  or  one  political  body  of  which  each 
colony  is  a  member,  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  w^orld," 
and  especially  from  Great  Britain.  Yet  notwithstanding, 
these  are  clearly  the  consequences  w^hich  must  follow  from  his 
premise;  and  that  such  are  the  consequences  the  Colonies  mean 
should  follow  from  them;  yet  Mr.  Dickenson,  not  caring  to 
discover  the  whole  of  their  purpose  so  fully  at  present,  in  the 
beginning  of  his  second  letter,  thus  expresses  himself:  ^'The 
parliament  unquestionably  possesses  a  legal  authority  to  regu- 
late the  trade  of  Great  Britain  and  all  her  Colonies:  such  an 
authority  is  essential  to  the  relation  between  a  mother  country 
and  her  Colonies,  and  necessary  for  the  common  good  of  all. 
He  who  considers  these  provinces,  as  states  distinct  from  the 
British  empire^  has  very  slender  notions  of  justice,  or  of  their 
interests:  we  are  but  parts  of  a  whole,  [57]  and  therefore  there 
must  exist  a  power  somewhere  to  preside  and  preserve  the  connec- 
tion in  due  order;   this  power  is  lodged  in  parliament.'^  .  .  . 


[59]  Perhaps  all  these  seeming  al^surdities,  and  contradic- 
tions would  be  reconciled  or  obviated,  if  we  rightly  understood 
the  account  he  gives  us  in  the  first  page  of  his  first  letter,  of 
the  connection  between  Great  Britain  and  her  Colonies;  and 
it  is  a  pity  his  learned  editor  has  not  given  the  pubUc  a  disser- 


12 

tation  upon  that  most  ingenious  and  instructive  passage.  ''We 
are,"  that  is,  the  Colonies  are,  says  he  "as  much  dependent  on 
Great  Britain,  as  a  perfectly  free  people  can  be  on  another." 

But  the  main  objection,  and  on  which  all  the  other  objec- 
tions made  by  the  Colonies  against  the  right  of  parhament  to 
impose  taxes  upon  them,  is  founded,  remains  to  be  examined. 
[60]  "They  tell  us,  that  it  is  the  true  principle  of  government, 
that  no  man  should  pay  a  tax  to  which  he  does  not  consent, 
either  in  his  own  person,  or  by  his  representative  chosen  by 
him;  that  the  Colonies  are  not  represented  in  the  British 
parliament,  and  therefore  cannot  be  taxed  by  it." 

This  doctrine,  that  taxation  and  representation  upon  the 
true  principles  of  government  must  go  together,  is  so  well  cal- 
culated to  captivate  the  multitude  in  this  country,  and  so  flat- 
tering to  the  Americans,  as  it  intirely  abrogates  the  authority 
of  parliament  to  tax  the  Colonies;  that  it  is  not  surprizing  it 
has  found  partizans  in  Great  Britain,  and  has  been  universally 
adopted  in  America,  without  much  enquiry  or  examination  into 
its  foundation,  in  reason  or  fact.  And  yet,  if  it  be  applied,  as 
in  the  instance  before  us,  to  an  actual  or  a  distinct  representa- 
tion of  all  those  who  are  taxed,  and  no  other  will  serve  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Colonies,  it  is  not  true  of  any  government  now 
existing,  nor,  I  believe,  of  any  which  ever  did  exist.  In  this 
sense  it  neither  is  nor  ever  was  true  in  Great  Britain!  [61]  It 
is  not  true  in  any  of  the  charter  or  royal  governments  in  Amer- 
ica: it  is  not  true  in  the  province  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  in 
which  by  the  last  history  of  it,  there  appears  not  only  to  be 
a  multitude  of  individuals,  but  even  forty  townships  of  free- 
holders now  taxed,  who  have  no  distinct  representatives:  so 
far  therefore  is  this  doctrine  of  distinct  representation  and  taxa- 
tion from  going  together, ' '  being  joined  by  God  himself;  founded 
in  the  eternal  law  of  nature;  having  grown  up  wdth  the  con- 
stitution of  England;"  that  it  never  existed,  either  in  England, 
or  any  other  country  in  the  world. 


[64]  ...  All  the  corporations  and  boroughs  who  elect  mem- 
bers for  parliament,  do  it  by  virtue  of  a  charter  for  that  pur- 
pose from  the  crown,  or  by  prescription,  which,  in  law,  pre- 
supposes a  grant  or  charter  beyond  time  of  memory.  The 
kings  of  England  for  many  centuries  constantly  exercised  the 
right   of   creating   corporations,   with   the   power   of   chusing 


13 

members  to  parliament,  and  vested  that  power  in  many  or 
in  a  few  at  their  discretion;  some  of  these,  particularly  the 
two  universities,  were  incorporated  for  that  purpose  so  late  as 
the  reign  of  James  the  First;  and,  unless  it  is  restrained  by 
the  act  of  the  union  of  the  two  kingdoms,  I  do  not  know  that 
this  power  has  ever  been  taken  away. 

[65]  This  right  in  corporations  of  electing  representatives 
to  parliament,  is  therefore  clearly  derived  from  the  grant  of 
the  crown;  and  the  members  of  the  corporation  exercise  that 
right,  because  the  corporation  holds  of  the  crown.  ... 

[66]  It  is,  moreover,  worthy  of  remark,  that  these  members 
sent  to  parliament  by  the  freeholders  and  corporations, 
are  not  called  the  representatives  of  the  people,  but  the  commons 
in  parliament.  They  are  so  styled  in  all  the  old  writs  and 
records;  they  are  so  styled  to  this  day  in  every  act  of  parlia- 
ment; and  they  act  not  only  for  their  own  particular  communi- 
ties, by  whom  they  are  severally  elected,  but  each  of  them 
for  the  com^munity  of  the  whole. 

[67]  The  subjects  of  Great  Britain  are  not,  however,  without 
their  representatives,  though  the  members  who  compose  the 
House  of  Commons  cannot  be  said  to  be  distinctly  so.  Neither 
are  they  bound  by  laws,  nor  is  their  money  taken  from  them 
without  their  own  consent  given  by  their  representatives. 
The  King,  Lords,  and  Commons  are  their  representatives;  for  to 
them  it  is  that  they  have  delegated  their  individual  rights  over 
their  lives,  liberties,  and  property;  and  so  long  as  they  approve 
of  that  form  of  government,  and  continue  under  it,  so  long  do 
they  consent  to  whatever  is  done  by  those  they  have  instructed 
with  their  rights. 

''Laws  they  are  not  (says  Hooker)  which  public  approba- 
tion hath  not  made  so.  But  approbation  not  only  they  give, 
who  personally  declare  their  assent  by  voice,  sign,  or  act, 
but  also  when  others  do  it  in  their  names,  by  right  originally 
at  the  least  derived  from  them.  And  to  be  commanded  we 
do  consent,  when  that  society  whereof  we  are  part  hath  at  any 
time  before  consented,  without  revoking  the  same  after  by 
the  like  universal  agreement."  [68]  And  Mr.  Locke,  who  fol- 
lowed this  learned  investigator  of  the  rights  of  mankind,  in 
his  answer  to  Sir  Robert  Filmer,*  after  having  shewn  that 

*  Locke's  Second  Treatise  of  Government  (Old  South  Leaflet,  No.  208). 


14 

the  origin  of  all  power  is  from  the  people  only;  that  every 
form  of  government,  whether  a  democracy,  an  oligarchy,  an 
elective  or  heriditary  monarchy,  is  nothing  more  than  a  trust 
delegated  by  the  society  to  the  person  or  persons  so  appointed, 
lays  it  down  as  a  fundamental  maxim  in  all  governments :  ' '  That 
the  legislative  is  the  joint  power  of  every  member  of  the  society, 
given  up  to  that  person  or  assembly  which  is  legislator;  and 
that  even  the  executive,  when  vested  in  a  single  person,  is  to 
be  considered  as  the  representative  of  the  common-wealth." 
And  he  then  adds;  ''Nobody  doubts  but  an  express  consent  of 
any  man  entering  into  society,  makes  him  a  perfect  member 
of  that  society,  a  subject  of  that  government.  The  difficulty 
is  what  ought  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  tacit  consent;  and  to  this 
I  say,  [69]  that  every  man  that  hath  any  possessions  or  enjoyment 
of  any  part  of  the  dominions  of  any  government,  doth  thereby 
give  his  tacit  consent,  and  is  as  far  forth  obliged  to  obedience  to 
the  laws  of  that  government  during  such  enjoyment,  as  any  one 
under  it.'' 

Upon  this  principle,  the  king  and  the  two  houses  of  parlia- 
ment, are  by  our  constitution  representatives  of  the  legislative, 
as  the  king  alone  is  of  the  executive  power  of  the  common- 
wealth; and,  upon  this  principle,  every  subject  of  Great 
Britain,  when  he  is  taxed  by  parliament,  is  taxed  by  his  own 
consent,  for  he  is  then  taxed  by  consent  of  those  whom  the 
society  has  impowered  to  act  for  the  whole;  and  every  member 
of  the  community  must  therefore  subscribe  his  tacit  consent 
to  all  such  taxes  as  may  be  imposed,  or  other  legislative  acts 
that  may  be  done  by  those  whom  the  society  has  appointed, 
as  long  as  the  form  of  government  subsists.  This  is  the  British 
constitution;  and  if  the  British  subjects  in  America  still  con- 
tinue to  be  part  of  our  community  it  follows  that  they  also  are 
represented  by  the  British  legislative,  and  equally  bound  by 
its  laws. 

[70]  That  the  first  inhabitants  of  the  Colonies  were  part 
of  the  British  community,  and  bound  to  obey  its  legislative 
power  in  all  respects,  as  any  other  subjects  at  the  time  of 
the  establishment  of  those  Colonies,  will  not  be  denied.  How 
then  has  that  obedience  been  altered  or  released?  Those 
Colonies  were  all  created  by  charters  or  temporary  authorities, 
from  the  executive  power  of  this  community,  except  in  the 
cases  of  Jamaica,  New  York,  and  the  late  acquisitions  of 
Quebec,   the   Ceded   Islands,   and   the   Two   Floridas,   which 


15 

were  conquests  made  by  this  community  upon  foreign  powers, 
and  such  of  their  subjects  as  remained  were  incorporated  with 
us  under  our  laws  and  obedience.  .  .  . 


[71]  But  suppose  it  had  been  otherwise;  can  it  be  con- 
tended, that  the  executive  power  of  the  crown,  can,  by  any 
grant  or  authority,  alter  or  annul  the  legislative  power  in  the 
article  of  taxation,  or  any  other?  Will  those  who  contend 
that  this  right  of  taxation  belongs  only  to,  and  can  only  be 
exercised  by  the  deputies  of  the  people,  contend  at  the  same 
time  for  a  right  in  the  crown  or  executive  to  annul  or  restrain 
the  legislative  power,  partly  composed  as  it  is  of  these  deputies, 
in  that  very  article  of  taxation?  If  they  do,  let  them  hear 
Mr.  Locke  in  reply.  He  will  tell  them,  that  ''even  the  legis- 
lative power  itself  cannot  transfer  the  power  of  making  laws 
to  any  other  hands;  for  it  being  but  a  delegated  power  from  the 
people,  they  who  have  it  cannot  pass  it  over  to  others."  [72]  He 
says,  moreover,  that  "all  obedience,  which,  by  the  most  solemn 
ties  any  one  can  be  obliged  to  pay,  ultimately  terminates  in 
this  supreme  power,  the  legislative,  and  is  directed  by  those 
laws  which  it  enacts;  nor  can  any  oaths  to  any  foreign  power 
whatsoever  or  any  domestic  subordinate  power ^  discharge  any 
member  of  the  society  from  his  obedience  to  the  legislative, 
acting  pursuant  to  their  trust;  nor  oblige  him  to  any  obedience 
contrary  to  the  laws  so  enacted,  or  farther  tlian  they  do  allow; 
it  being  ridiculous  to  imagine,  one  can  be  tied  ultimately  to 
obey  any  power  in  the  society  which  is  not  supreme."  He 
says  in  another  place;  ''there  can  be  but  one  supreme  power, 
which  is  the  legislative,  to  which  all  the  rest  are  and  must  be 
subordinate." 


[73]  .  .  .  The  kings  of  England  never  had  personally,  nor  ever 
claimed  to  have  any  property  in  the  lands  in  the  Colonies. 
[74]  Those  of  them  who  carried  their  claims  of  prerogative  the 
highest,  never  pretended  to  have  any  other  title  to  those 
lands  than  what  they  derived  from  their  possession  of  the 
crown  of  England,  and  they  granted  them  under  that  title  to 
their  present  possessors,  or  their  ancestors;  for  all  grants 
of  lands  in  the  Colonies  have  been  marie  under  the  great  seal 
of  England,  or  by  authority  derived  under  the  great  seal  of 


i6 

England,  which  is  the  same  thing,  from  the  first  discovery 
of  America  to  this  day. 


[76]  The  lands  in  all  the  Colonies  having  therefore  been 
clearly  shewn  to  be  part  of  the  dominions  of  Great  Britain,  and 
the  possessors  of  them  to  hold  them  under  authorities  and 
titles  derived  from  the  British  state,  Mr.  Locke  would  require 
no  other  proof  of  the  right  of  the  legislative  power  of  Great 
Britain  to  the  obedience  of  the  possessors  of  those  lands;  for, 
speaking  of  the  manner  by  which  a  man  tacitly  makes  himself 
a  subject  of  any  country  or  government,  he  says: 

"It  is  commonly  supposed,  that  a  father  could  oblige  his 
posterity  to  that  government  of  which  he  himself  was  a  subject, 
and  that  his  compact  held  them;  whereas  it  being  only  a  neces- 
sary condition  annexed  to  the  land,  [77]  and  the  inheritance  of 
an  estate  which  is  under  that  government,  reaches  only  those 
who  will  take  it  on  that  condition,  and  so  is  no  natural  tie  or 
engagement,  but  a  voluntary  submission;  for  every  man's 
children,  being  by  nature  as  free  as  himself,  or  any  of  his 
ancestors  ever  were,  may,  whilst  they  are  in  that  freedom, 
choose  what  society  they  will  join  themselves  to,  what  common- 
wealth they  will  put  themselves  under;  but  if  they  will  enjoy 
the  inheritance  of  their  ancestors,  they  must  take  it  on  the  same 
terms  their  ancestors  had  it,  and  submit  to  all  the  conditions 
annexed  to  such  a  possession.'*  *' Whoever  (says  he  in  another 
place)  by  inheritance,  purchase,  permission,  or  otherways, 
enjoys  any  part  of  the  land  so  annexed  to,  and  under  the  govern- 
ment of,  that  commonwealth,  must  take  it  with  the  condition 
it  is  under ;  that  is,  of  submitting  to  the  government  of  the  com- 
monwealth under  whose  jurisdiction  it  is,  as  far  forth  as  any 
subject  of  it." 

[78]  I  have  quoted  these  passages  from  Mr.  Locke's  Treatise 
upon  Civil  Government,  because  his  opinions  in  this  treatise 
have  been  principally  rehed  on  as  the  foundation  of  many 
extravagant  and  absurd  propositions  which  he  never  meant  to 
encourage;  and  because  I  have  the  highest  regard  in  general 
for  the  good  sense  and  free  spirit  of  that  excellent  work,  written 
to  defend  the  natural  rights  of  men,  and  particularly  the 
principles  of  our  constitution,  when  they  were  attacked  both 
by  force  and  fraud: 


17 

[84]  But  what  puts  Mr.  Locke's  meaning  in  these  pages 
out  of  all  question,  is  what  he  says  in  his  eighth  chapter  of 
the  beginning  of  civil  societies:  ''That  every  man,  when  he 
at  first  incorporates  himself  into  any  commonwealth,  he,  by 
his  uniting  himself  thereunto,  annexes  also  and  submits  to 
the  community,  those  possessions  which  he  has  or  shall  acquire, 
[85]  that  do  not  already  belong  to  any  other  government: 
for  it  would  be  a  direct  contradiction  for  any  one  to  enter  into 
society  with  others,  for  the  securing  and  regulating  of  property, 
and  yet  to  suppose  his  land,  whose  property  is  to  be  regulated 
by  the  laws  of  the  society,  should  be  exempt  from  the  juris- 
diction of  that  government  to  which  he  himself,  the  proprieter 
of  the  land  is  a  subject.  By  the  same  act  therefore,  whereby 
any  one  unites  his  person,  which  was  before  free  to  any  com- 
monwealth, by  the  same  he  unites  his  possessions,  which  were 
before  free  to  it  also;  and  they  become,  both  of  them,  person 
and  possession,  subject  to  the  government  and  dominion  of 
that  commonwealth  as  long  as  it  hath  a  being." 

Can  any  words  more  strongly  express  the  right  of  the  supreme 
legislature  to  tax  or  dispose  of  the  property  of  the  subject 
for  public  purposes,  than  do  these  last  quoted?  And  those  who 
would  draw  from  any  other  more  loose  or  general  expressions 
of  Mr.  Locke,  any  argument  to  exempt  the  property  of  any 
subject  from  taxes  imposed  by  the  supreme  legislative  for  the 
public  service,  [86]  must  impute  to  him  such  inconsistencies 
as  Mr.  Locke  was  incapable  of,  and  charge  him  with  con- 
tradictions w^hich  ought  to  destroy  his  credit,  both  as  an  honest 
man  and  a  clear  reasoner. 


I  might  indeed  have  brought  it  to  a  much  speedier  conclusion, 
and  have  exposed  the  absurdity  and  impracticability  of  the 
doctrine,  from  the  very  principles  upon  which  its  promulgers 
would  establish  it.  They  say;  ''That  no  man  ought  to  be 
taxed,  but  by  his  own  consent;^'  or,  in  other  words,  "that  the 
consent  of  those  who  pay  the  taxes  is  necessary  to  their  being 
constitutionally  imposed.  [87]  That  this  consent  must  be 
given  by  the  people  themselves  who  pay  the  taxes,  or  by 
their  distinct  representatives  chosen  by  them."  And  these, 
they  say,  are  the  rights  of  Englishmen.  Now  if  these  be  the 
rights  of  Englishmen,  I  will  undertake  to  say,  there  is  scarce 
a  session  of  parliament  passes  in  which  they  are  not  most 


i8 

notoriously  violated,  and  if  parliament  did  not  do  so,  it  could 
lay  no  taxes  whatever. 

When  the  tax  was  laid  upon  hops,  did  the  people  who  were 
to  pay  the  tax,  viz.  the  hop-growers,  consent  to  it,  either  by 
themselves  or  their  distinct  representatives?  Did  the  people 
in  the  cyder  counties,  or  their  distinct  representatives,  consent 
to  the  tax  upon  cyder?  Is  the  land-tax  kept  up  at  three  shillings 
with  the  consent  of  all  the  land-owners  in  the  kingdom,  or  that 
of  all  the  knights  of  shires,  their  distinct  representatives? 
What  tax  is  it  indeed  to  which  those  who  pay  it,  or  their  dis- 
tinct representatives,  have  all  consented? — [S8]  But  if  this 
actual  and  distinct  consent  of  the  taxed,  or  of  their  distinct 
representatives,  be  constitutionally  necessary  to  their  being 
taxed;  by  consequence,  whenever  such  consent  is  not  given, 
no  tax  can  be  constitutionally  imposed.  .  .  . 


[91]  Thus,  whilst  they  exclaim  against  parliament  for  taxing 
them  when  they  are  not  represented,  they  candidly  declare 
they  will  not  have  representatives,  lest  they  should  be  taxed — 
like  froward  children,  they  cry  for  that  which  they  are  de- 
termined to  refuse,  if  it  should  be  offered  them.*  The  truth 
however  is,  that  they  are  determined  to  get  rid  of  the  juris- 
diction of  parliament  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  if  they  can;  and 
they  therefore  refuse  to  send  members  to  that  assembly,  lest 
they  should  preclude  themselves  of  this  plea  against  all  its 
legislative  acts — that  they  are  done  without  their  consent; 
which,  it  must  be  confessed,  holds  equally  good  against  all 
laws,  as  against  taxes.  [92]  For  it  is  undoubtedly  a  principle 
of  the  British  constitution,  "that  no  man  shall  be  bound  by 
any  law  to  which  he  does  not  give  his  consent,"  of  equal  efficacy 
with  that  of  his  not  being  taxed,  but  by  his  own  consent.  In 
what  manner  however  that  consent  is  given,  we  have  already 
seen;  and  the  futility  and  falacy  of  the  pretence,  that  it  cannot 
be  given  but  by  distinct  representatives,  elected  by  those  who 
pay  taxes,  or  are  bound  by  laws,  have  been  sufficiently  exposed. 

The  colony  advocates  however,  not  caring  to  develope  their 
whole  purpose  at  present,  tell  us,  that  by  refusing  to  accept  our 
offer  of  representatives,  they  only  mean  to  avoid  giving  parlia- 

*  The  colonial  delegates  to  the  Stamp  Act  Congress  of  1765  declared 
against  sending  colonial  representatives  to  Parliament.  Compare  Samuel 
Adams's  Rights  of  the  Colonists,  in  Old  South  Leaflet  No.  173,  p.  6. 


19 

ment  a  pretence  for  taxing  them,  which  they  say  it  is  not  neces- 
sary for  parhament  to  do,  as  they  have  assemblies  of  their  own 
in  each  Colony,  who  are  the  representatives  of  the  people; 
and  w^ho,  being  acquainted  with  their  circumstances,  can  best 
judge  what  taxes  they  can  bear,  and  what  sums  they  ought 
to  contribute  to  the  public  occasions,  whenever  his  majesty 
shall  call  upon  them  for  their  aid. 

[93]  The  colony  assemblies  are  indeed  but  seven-and-twenty, 
and  perhaps  it  might  happen,  that  they  should  all  agree  in 
opinion  upon  some  one  point;  but  I  much  fear  that  point 
would  not  be — to  lay  taxes  upon  themselves.  There  is  much 
more  reason  to  apprehend  it  might  be  as  we  have  seen — not  to 
do  so.  Mankind  are  in  general  apt  enough  to  agree  to  keep 
their  money,  but  not  so  frequently  of  one  mind  when  the 
proposition  is  to  part  with  it.  But  to  take  the  matter  on  its 
fairest  side,  let  us  suppose  these  twenty-seven  states  all  equally 
disposed  to  shew  regard  to  his  majesty's  requisition — provided 
they  think  the  occasion  fitting.  Upon  what  occasion  then 
shall  his  majesty  call  upon  them?  Not  to  settle  a  permanent 
revenue  for  support  of  their  own  civil  establishments;  for  he 
has  already  made  requisitions  to  many  of  them,  without  end, 
for  that  purpose,  and  always  without  effect;  and  those  few 
who  have  complied  most  heartily  regret  it.  Shall  it  be  for 
support  of  the  military  establishment  kept  up  in  time  of  peace? 
The  continental  Colonies  tell  us  ''they  don't  want  our  troops; 
and  if  we  keep  any  among  them  we  must  pay  them.''  [94] 
Shall  it  be  for  a  fund  to  give  presents  to  the  Indians?  The 
islands  say, ' '  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Indians.  Those 
who  have  the  benefit  of  their  trade,  and  live  upon  their  lands, 
ought  to  give  them  presents."  Shall  it  be  for  discharge  of  the 
public  debt?  One  and  all  will  tell  us,  ''that  is  the  affair  of 
Great  Britain  alone."  Suppose  then  a  w^ar  breaks  out;  the 
Indians  attack  the  back  settlers  in  Virginia — what  will  Caro- 
lina contribute  for  defence  of  that  province?  ^'Just  as  much 
as  she  has  ever  done."  What  will  the  Islands  give?  Exactly 
the  same.  Suppose  the  Barbary  states  quarrel  with  us;  the 
fishing  colonies,  and  the  rice  and  sugar  colonies,  suffer  by  their 
depredations  on  the  ships  bound  to  Portugal  and  the  Streights 
— what  would  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  Virginia,  do  in 
the  matter?  A  war  in  Germany  becomes  the  occasion  of 
the  requisition;  rice,  sugar,  and  tobacco  all  go  thither,  but  no 
fish — why  then  should  New  England,  Nova  Scotia,  or  Quebec,. 


20 


give  any  thing?  [95]  If  it  was  for  support  of  the  Itahan  states, 
these  colonies  might  indeed  contribute  something,  as  they  buy 
their  fish;  but  if  that  were  the  occasion  would  Pennsylvania, 
Virginia,  or  Carolina  do  so? 


[106]  The  late  war,  though  commenced  in  America,  and 
occasioned  by  a  dispute  about  American  territories,  was  not, 
say  the  colony  advocates,  a  colony  quarrel;  nor  are  the  acqui- 
sitions made  by  the  crown  in  the  course  of  it,  and  retained  by 
the  treaty  of  Paris,  of  any  advantage  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
old  provinces;  on  the  contrary,  the  value  of  their  possessions 
has  been  much  lessened  by  the  addition  of  such  extensive  ter- 
ritories. But  not  to  injure  their  cause  by  abridging  their  argu- 
ments, I  will  set  them  down  in  their  own  words,  and  at  full 
length  as  I  find  them  in  Dr.  Franklin's  Examination,  and  in 
the  Farmer's  Letters. 

[107]  Dr.  Franklin  thus  delivers  himself  before  the  House 
of  Commons  in  1765:  "I  know  the  last  war  is  commonly  spoke 
of  here,  as  entered  into  for  the  defence,  or  for  the  sake  of  the 
people  of  America.  I  think  it  quite  misunderstood.  It  began 
about  the  limits  between  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,  about  ter- 
ritories to  which  the  crown  indeed  laid  claim,  but  were  not 
claimed  by  any  British  colony:  none  of  the  lands  had  been 
granted  to  any  colonist;  we  had  therefore  no  particular  con- 
cern or  interest  in  that  dispute.  As  to  the  Ohio,  the  contest 
there  begun  about  your  right  of  trading  in  the  Indian  country, 
a  right  you  had  by  the  treaty  of  Utricht,  which  the  French 
infringed;  they  seized  the  traders,  and  their  goods,  which 
were  your  manufactures;  they  took  a  fort  which  a  company 
of  your  merchants  and  their  factors  and  correspondents  had 
erected  there,  to  secure  that  trade.  Braddock  was  sent  with 
an  army  to  retake  that  fort  (which  was  looked  on  here  as  another 
encroachment  on  the  king's  territory)  and  to  protect  your 
trade.  [108]  It  was  not  till  after  his  defeat  (in  1755),  that 
the  Colonies  were  attacked.  They  were  before  in  perfect  peace 
with  both  French  and  Indians.  The  troops  were  not  there- 
fore sent /or  their  defence.  The  trade  with  the  Indians,  though 
carried  on  in  America,  is  not  an  American  interest.  The  people 
of  America  are  chiefly  farmers  and  planters;  scarce  any  thing 
they  raise  or  produce  is  an  article  of  commerce  with  the  Indians. 
The  Indian  trade  is  a  British  interest;    it  is  carried  on  with 


21 

British  manufactures  for  the  profit  of  British  merchants  and 
manufacturers ;  therefore  the  war,  as  it  commenced  for  defence 
of  territories  of  the  crown,  the  property  of  no  American,  and 
for  the  defence  of  a  trade  purely  British,  was  really  a  British 
war.'' 

Having  been  asked,  "Is  it  not  necessary  to  send  troops  to 
America  to  defend  the  Americans  against  the  Indians?"  The 
Doctor  rephes,  "No;  by  no  means:  it  never  was  necessary. 
They  defended  themselves  when  they  were  but  an  handful,  and 
the  Indians  much  more  numerous.  [109]  They  continually 
gained  ground,  and  have  driven  the  Indians  over  the  moun- 
tains without  any  troops  sent  to  their  assistance  from  this 
country." 


[in]  The  high  rank  Dr.  Franklin  so  fitly  holds  among  the 
philosophers  of  the  age,  the  honourable  testimony  borne  to 
his  literary  merit  by  the  university  of  Oxford,  and  his  great 
knowledge  of  the  colony  affairs,  must  give  his  evidence  a  de- 
gree of  credit  little  short  of  proofs  of  holy  writ;  more  especially 
when  it  is  considered,  that  although  an  oath  had  not  been 
administered,  yet  his  testimony  was  called  for  by  the  great 
council  of  the  nation,  upon  a  matter  of  the  highest  importance 
to  the  state,  and  given  with  suitable  solemnity.  Mr.  Dicken- 
son's private  character  is  not  indeed  so  well  known,  but  it  is 
very  respectable;  and  as  the  spirit  he  was  endeavouring  to 
infuse  into  his  countrymen  must  soon  have  carried  them  to 
make  their  appeal  to  heaven,  he  cannot  surely  be  suspected  of 
attempting  to  rouse  them  by  falsehoods  to  an  undertaking, 
for  the  success  of  which  they  were  to  depend  on  the  favour  of 
the  Almighty.  How  shall  I  then  venture  to  controvert  the 
assertions  of  either  of  these  gentlemen?  [112]  The  evidence 
of  other  individuals,  however  respectable  will  be  thought  insuf- 
ficient, as  none  other  can  be  supposed  to  have  had  equal  means 
of  information. — The  opinion  of  governors  or  military  com- 
manders, would  be  deemed  partial,  either  to  themselves  or  this 
country,  and  the  informations  transmitted  to  ministers  are 
always  suspected  to  be  adapted  to  the  taste  of  the  minister,  or 
suited  to  serve  some  particular  purpose.  The  evidence  which 
I  shall  therefore  have  recourse  to,  is  no  other  than  that  of  the 
assemblies  of  the  Colonies  of  Virginia  and  Massachuset's  Bay; 
the  one  colony  situate  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Ohio,  and  the 


22 


Other  bordering  upon  Nova  Scotia.  The  members  of  those 
assembUes  must  therefore  be  supposed  to  have  had  as  com- 
petent knowledge  of  the  state  of  affairs  in  their  respective  coun- 
tries, and  of  the  causes  of  the  late  war,  as  either  Doctor  Frank- 
lin or  Mr.  Dickenson. 


[129]  Extract  from  the  Address  of  the  Assembly  of 
Virginia  to  the  King,  1754. 

"As  the  endeavours  of  the  French  to  estabhsh  a  settlement 
upon  our  frontiers,  is  a  high  insult  offered  to  your  majesty,  and 
if  not  timely  opposed  wz7/z  vigour  and  resolution,  must  be  attended 
with  the  most  fatal  consequences;  we  have  (notwithstanding 
the  great  poverty  of  the  colony,  and  the  low  condition  of  the 
public  revenue,  occasioned  by  the  bad  state  of  our  tobacco  trade, 
and  a  large  debt  due  from  the  country,  for  raising  and  main- 
taining of  soldiers  upon  the  expedition  against  Canada  in  the 
year  1746)  granted  a  supply  of  ten  thousand  pounds  towards 
defraying  and  protecting  your  majesty's  subjects  against  the 
encroachments  of  the  French,  which,  though  not  sufficient  to 
answer  all  the  ends  for  which  it  is  designed,  is  the  utmost  that 
your  people  under  their  present  circumstances  are  able  to  bear. 
We  therefore  most  humbly  beseech  your  majesty,  to  extend 
your  royal  beneficence  to  us  your  loyal  subjects,  [130]  that  we 
may  be  enabled  to  effectually  defeat  the  unjust  and  pernicious 
designs  of  your  enemies." 


[131]  Extract  from  the  Draught  of  a  Representation  of  the 
Commissioners  met  at  Albany,  July  9th  1754. 


[132]  ''That  the  said  Colonies  being  in  a  divided,  disunited 
state,  there  has  never  been  any  joint  exertion  of  their  force,  or 
councils,  [133]  to  repel  or  defeat  the  measures  of  the  French; 
and  particular  Colonies  are  unable  and  unwilling  to  maintain 
the  cause  of  the  whole. 


23 

That  it  seems  absolutely  necessaiy,  that  speedy  and  effectual 
measures  be  taken  to  secure  the  Colonies  from  the  slavery 
tiiey  are  threatened  with." 


[179]  Whilst  parliament  was  thus  in  every  reign,  and  almost 
in  every  session,  exercising  its  supreme  legislative  authority 
over  the  Colonies,  the  ministers  and  servants  of  the  crown 
were  not  wanting  on  their  part,  in  carrying  the  laws  into  due 
execution,  or  in  exerting  the  Prince's  just  authority,  for  pre- 
serving the  Colonies  in  their  dependance  on  the  king  and  par- 
liament of  Great  Britain. 


[198]  In  the  year  1764,  the  Colonies  were  made  acquainted 
through  their  agents,  that  a  revenue  would  be  required  from 
them,  towards  defraying  the  charge  of  the  troops  kept  up 
among  them,  and  to  give  this  intimation  the  more  efhcacy,  a 
resolution  was  propounded  to,  and  adopted  by  the  house  of 
commons,  that  for  the  purpose  of  raising  such  a  general  reve- 
nue, a  stamp  duty  might  be  necessary. 

[199]  The  Colonies  by  this,  saw  that  government  was  in 
earnest,  and  they  could  not  doubt  of  the  intimation  given 
them  from  the  king's  ministers;  that  if  they  did  not  make 
grants  in  their  own  assemblies,  parliament  would  do  it  for 
them.  Mr.  Grenville,  indeed,  went  so  far  as  to  desire  the  agents 
to  acquaint  the  Colonies,  that  if  they  could  not  agree  among 
themselves,  upon  raising  a  revenue  by  their  own  assemblies, 
yet  if  they  all  or  any  of  them  disliked  stamp  duties,  and  would 
propose  any  other  sort  of  tax  which  would  carry  the  appearance 
of  equal  efficacy,  he  would  adopt  it.  But  he  warmly  recom- 
mended to  them  the  making  grants  by  their  own  assemblies, 
as  the  most  expedient  method  for  themselves  on  several  ac- 
counts. The  issue  of  this  business  is  well  known.  The  Colo- 
nies universally  refused  to  raise  a  fund  among  themselves,  for 
those  who  seemed  inclined  to  do  so,  made  no  offer  of  any  specific 
sum,  nor  made  any  grant  in  their  assemblies,  nor  laid  any  tax 
for  the  purpose.  [200]  They  did  not  imitate  the  more  prudent 
conduct  of  the  New  York  assembly,  in  the  year  17 15,  and  par- 
liament therefore  did  in  1765,  what  parliament  would  have 
done  in  that  year,  if  the  like  refusal  had  been  made. 

I  shall  here  stop  my  researches  into  the  political  history  of 


24 

the  Colonies,  and  of  the  conduct  which  has  been  held  by  par- 
Uament  and  ministry  towards  them.  And  let  me  now  ask 
the  advocates  for  their  independency,  upon  which  period  of 
this  history  it  is,  that  they  would  fix,  as  the  epocha  of  the 
Colonies  emancipation  from  the  sovereign  authority  of  the 
supreme  legislature  of  the  realm,  or  where  will  they  carry  us 
for  those  pretended  rights  and  privileges  which  exempt  them 
from  its  Jurisdiction?  We  have  sought  for  them  in  the  statute 
books,  but  we  found  them  not;  we  have  looked  for  them  in  the 
conduct  of  a  long  series  of  ministers;  and  in  the  opinions  of 
the  truly  learned  and  great  lawyers,  that  were  of  council  to  our 
kings,  in  the  past  ages,  and  lo,  they  are  not  there.  Where  then 
shall  we  hope  to  meet  with  them?  [201]  In  extravagant  decla- 
mations and  unfounded  arguments.  In  the  weak  artifices  of 
party  and  in  the  studied  misrepresentations  of  designing  and 
interested  men. 

NOTES. 

A  talent  for  political  controversy  distinguished  William  Knox  from  the 
office-holding  class  to  which  he  belonged.  Born  in  Ireland  in  1732,  he 
received  one  of  the  places  at  the  King's  disposal  in  Georgia,  in  1757.  After 
his  return  to  England  in  1761  he  was  appointed  agent  of  Georgia  and  East 
Florida  in  London,  but  his  publication  of  two  pamphlets  in  defense  of  the 
Stamp  Act  caused  his  services  to  be  dispensed  with.  In  1770,  possibly 
as  a  reward  for  "The  Controversy  Reviewed,"  he  was  made  under  secre- 
tary in  the  Colonial  Office,  which  position  he  held  throughout  the  American 
Revolution.  He  retired  on  a  fat  pension  in  1782,  and  died  in  1810.  His 
other  pamphlets  on  American  affairs  are:  "A  Letter  to  a  Member  of  Par- 
liament." (1764.)  "The  Claim  of  the  Colonies  to  an  Exemption  from 
Internal  Taxes."  (1765.)  " Instruction  of  the  free  Indians  and  Negroe 
Slaves  in  the  Colonies."  (1768.)  "The  Present  State  of  the  Nation." 
(1768.)  "A  Defense  on  the  Quebec  Act."  (1774.)  Other  important 
pamphlets  on  the  Tory  side  of  the  taxation  controversy  are  listed  in 
Edward  Charming,  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  80. 


As  a  part  of  its  "Old  South  Work,"  the  Old  South  Association  in 
Boston  has  published,  during  the  course  of  years,  over  two  hundred 
historical  leaflets.  A  subject  catalogue  is  available  on  request. 

Prices  up  to  ten,  10  cents  each,  post-paid. 

Discounts  on  larger  quantities. 

Please  address  orders  and  inquiries  to 

THE  LEAFLET  COMMITTEE 
The  Old  South  Association 

Washington  and  Milk  Streets,  Boston  8,  Massachusetts 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


39153020726446 


